Assessee challenged penalty levied by AO under section 271(1)(c) on the ground of non-specification of particular charge of offence in penalty notice. Held: As apparent AO in the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) did not specify charge against assessee as to whether it was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly the notice was defective and penalty levied on the basis of such notice could not be sustained.
IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH
J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. & A.T. VARKEY, J.M.
Varun Finance (P) Ltd. v. ITO
I.T.A. No. 510/Kol/2019
24 September, 2020
In favour of assessee.
Appellant by: None
Respondent by: Jayanta Khanra, Joint Commissioner
A.T. Varkey, J.M.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, dated 14-1-2019 for assessment year 2006-07 confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1) (c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
2. None appeared for the assessee. However, we have gone through the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and note that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee. The grounds of appeal of assessee reads as under :--
'1. For that learned Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in dismissing the appeal ignoring (a) fact that appellant had opted for e-proceedings (b) submitted written submissions and judgments relied on through e-Proceedings In my account on departmental website and also by way of emails on official email id of learned Commissioner (Appeals), (c) learned Commissioner (Appeals) has himself considered the appeal through e-proceedings and had uploaded order on portal and did not serve hard copy of order and (d) the notice of learned Commissioner (Appeals) clearly mentioned to the effect that personal appearance is not necessary and appellant can file written submission by email etc.